[VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2

[Andre Fischer-2]

Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release
for Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more than 11
million downloads.


This release candidate provides the following important key changes
compared to the OpenOffice 3.4 release:

(1) Five more translations: Finnish, British English, Khmer, Slovak, and
Slovenian.

(2) As of 2012/08/16, there were 69 verified issues that have been
     resolved. (Complete list at http://s.apache.org/Huv)

(3) Update of the NOTICE file: it now properly mentions CoinMP as
numerical equation solver.

(3) Most external source archives are now downloaded from their project
servers.
     For all of them exists a fallback at
http://ooo-extras.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/.
     The Apache SVN repository is only used as secondary fallback and
     is not used in practice.
     It will be removed in the next release.


For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.

The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following
wiki page:

 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
(incubating).

The vote starts now and will be open until:

     Tuesday, August 21st: 2012-08-21 15pm UTC+2.

The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list.
There where 11 +1 votes including
    one IPMC member binding +1,
    10 +1 votes fro PPMC members (this includes the one IPMC member),
    one +1 vote from a community member.
No abstinations, no -1 votes.

Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C502B8FCD.4050100%40googlemail.com%3E


The vote will be open for 3 days.

     [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
     [ ]  0 Don't care
     [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Jim Jagielski]

On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:24 AM, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@...> wrote:
>
>
> The vote will be open for 3 days.
>
>    [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>    [ ]  0 Don't care
>    [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>

+1 (binding)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Richard S. Hall]

On 8/18/12 08:24 , Andre Fischer wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator
> release for Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more
> than 11 million downloads.
>
>
> This release candidate provides the following important key changes
> compared to the OpenOffice 3.4 release:
>
> (1) Five more translations: Finnish, British English, Khmer, Slovak,
> and Slovenian.
>
> (2) As of 2012/08/16, there were 69 verified issues that have been
>     resolved. (Complete list at http://s.apache.org/Huv)

Do I actually need a bugzilla account to view the issue list? The above
link directs me to a login screen...

-> richard

>
> (3) Update of the NOTICE file: it now properly mentions CoinMP as
> numerical equation solver.
>
> (3) Most external source archives are now downloaded from their
> project servers.
>     For all of them exists a fallback at
> http://ooo-extras.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/.
>     The Apache SVN repository is only used as secondary fallback and
>     is not used in practice.
>     It will be removed in the next release.
>
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following
> wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1 
>
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
> (incubating).
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
>     Tuesday, August 21st: 2012-08-21 15pm UTC+2.
>
> The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list.
> There where 11 +1 votes including
>    one IPMC member binding +1,
>    10 +1 votes fro PPMC members (this includes the one IPMC member),
>    one +1 vote from a community member.
> No abstinations, no -1 votes.
>
> Vote thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C502B8FCD.4050100%40googlemail.com%3E 
>
>
>
> The vote will be open for 3 days.
>
>     [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>     [ ]  0 Don't care
>     [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Andre Fischer-2]

On 18.08.2012 17:53, Richard S. Hall wrote:

>
> On 8/18/12 08:24 , Andre Fischer wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator
>> release for Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more
>> than 11 million downloads.
>>
>>
>> This release candidate provides the following important key changes
>> compared to the OpenOffice 3.4 release:
>>
>> (1) Five more translations: Finnish, British English, Khmer, Slovak,
>> and Slovenian.
>>
>> (2) As of 2012/08/16, there were 69 verified issues that have been
>>     resolved. (Complete list at http://s.apache.org/Huv)
>
> Do I actually need a bugzilla account to view the issue list? The above
> link directs me to a login screen...

It is a shared query.  Please try this (slightly longer) link:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?f1=OP&o3=equals&list_id=24324&f0=OP&v3=3.4.1_release_blocker%3F&query_based_on=Resolved341ReleaseBlocker&o2=equals&f4=bug_severity&query_format=advanced&j1=OR&f3=flagtypes.name&f2=flagtypes.name&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&f5=CP&f6=CP&v2=3.4.1_release_blocker%2B&known_name=Resolved341ReleaseBlocker

-Andre

>
> -> richard
>
>>
>> (3) Update of the NOTICE file: it now properly mentions CoinMP as
>> numerical equation solver.
>>
>> (3) Most external source archives are now downloaded from their
>> project servers.
>>     For all of them exists a fallback at
>> http://ooo-extras.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/.
>>     The Apache SVN repository is only used as secondary fallback and
>>     is not used in practice.
>>     It will be removed in the next release.
>>
>>
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes at
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>>
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following
>> wiki page:
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
>>
>>
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>> (incubating).
>>
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>
>>     Tuesday, August 21st: 2012-08-21 15pm UTC+2.
>>
>> The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list.
>> There where 11 +1 votes including
>>    one IPMC member binding +1,
>>    10 +1 votes fro PPMC members (this includes the one IPMC member),
>>    one +1 vote from a community member.
>> No abstinations, no -1 votes.
>>
>> Vote thread:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C502B8FCD.4050100%40googlemail.com%3E
>>
>>
>>
>> The vote will be open for 3 days.
>>
>>     [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>>     [ ]  0 Don't care
>>     [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@...> wrote:

>     [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>     [ ]  0 Don't care
>     [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

-1

I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
release:

    http://s.apache.org/ha

    We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected
    and these will be part of the official release.

The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
interpreted by Roy Fielding:

    http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3

    Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
    management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board
    of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
    maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at no
    charge.

    http://s.apache.org/rk5

    This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
    certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of Delaware
    that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an IRS
    501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as part of
    every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
    open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the public."

    Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files are not
    open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is applicable
    only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we vote on
    as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts.
    Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
    approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the
    binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for release
    (even if it was derived from open source).

    I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write documentation
    to explain something that is fundamental to the open source definition?

I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source
release.

Marvin Humphrey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Dave Fisher-5]

On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@...> wrote:
>
>>    [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>>    [ ]  0 Don't care
>>    [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> -1
>
> I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> release:
>
>    http://s.apache.org/ha
>
>    We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected
>    and these will be part of the official release.

I am not surprised at your response, but it is hard and unproductive to argue with Rob.

>
> The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
> interpreted by Roy Fielding:
>
>    http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3
>
>    Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
>    management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board
>    of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
>    maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at no
>    charge.
>
>    http://s.apache.org/rk5
>
>    This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
>    certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of Delaware
>    that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an IRS
>    501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as part of
>    every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
>    open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the public."
>
>    Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files are not
>    open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is applicable
>    only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we vote on
>    as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts.
>    Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
>    approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the
>    binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for release
>    (even if it was derived from open source).
>
>    I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write documentation
>    to explain something that is fundamental to the open source definition?
>
> I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
> casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source
> release.

My IPMC VOTE was done entirely by inspecting / unpacking the source release and building a MacOSX distro entirely from source. The package started fine.

Comparisons to SVN and a RAT scan via the buildbot was accomplished. rat-excludes file has not been changed since before the prior 3.4.0 release, but please look at it to see if there is anything in there that is troublesome - there are some "binary" files but they are in example and test directories. Perhaps there are edge cases, but it is typical to have examples and unit tests that include binaries in other projects.

There are some wildcard excludes that may be better as specific.

I recommend that you do any RAT scan on Linux as there is trouble of some kind on MacOSX and Windows.

Let us know if you think that this is beyond "cups" and "saucers" level.

I did not consider the binary packages for multiple platforms and languages at all in my VOTE.

Regards,
Dave

>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Rob Weir-6]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@...> wrote:
>
>>     [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>>     [ ]  0 Don't care
>>     [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> -1
>
> I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> release:
>
>     http://s.apache.org/ha
>
>     We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected
>     and these will be part of the official release.
>
> The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
> interpreted by Roy Fielding:
>
>     http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3
>
>     Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
>     management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board
>     of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
>     maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at no
>     charge.
>
>     http://s.apache.org/rk5
>
>     This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
>     certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of Delaware
>     that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an IRS
>     501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as part of
>     every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
>     open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the public."
>
>     Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files are not

Actually, the bylaws do not define "open source" or "software".  So
pick your definition.  The industry standard was the OSI definition,
or so I thought, which makes it clear that open source also includes
binaries that are accompanied by source code, or where
"well-publicized means of obtaining the source code" are given.

See:  http://opensource.org/osd.html

I'd point out that the ALv2 applies to source as well as binaries.


>     open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is applicable
>     only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we vote on
>     as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts.
>     Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
>     approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the
>     binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for release
>     (even if it was derived from open source).
>

Again, most would disagree with the assertion that binaries are not open source.

Regards,

-Rob

>     I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write documentation
>     to explain something that is fundamental to the open source definition?
>
> I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
> casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source
> release.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Dave Fisher-5]

Top-Post - you question is answered below.

In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.

Edge case and RAT check discussion at the bottom, if that balances your vote in either direction.

Please advise about whether you think the PPMC needs to respin the VOTE and/or the Artifacts in any way.

Thanks & Regards,
Dave

On Aug 20, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:

>
> On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@...> wrote:
>>
>>>   [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>>>   [ ]  0 Don't care
>>>   [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> -1
>>
>> I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
>> release:
>>
>>   http://s.apache.org/ha
>>
>>   We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected
>>   and these will be part of the official release.
>
> I am not surprised at your response, but it is hard and unproductive to argue with Rob.
>
>>
>> The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
>> interpreted by Roy Fielding:
>>
>>   http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3
>>
>>   Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
>>   management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board
>>   of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
>>   maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at no
>>   charge.
>>
>>   http://s.apache.org/rk5
>>
>>   This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
>>   certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of Delaware
>>   that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an IRS
>>   501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as part of
>>   every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
>>   open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the public."
>>
>>   Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files are not
>>   open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is applicable
>>   only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we vote on
>>   as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts.
>>   Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
>>   approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the
>>   binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for release
>>   (even if it was derived from open source).
>>
>>   I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write documentation
>>   to explain something that is fundamental to the open source definition?
>>
>> I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
>> casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source
>> release.
>
> My IPMC VOTE was done entirely by inspecting / unpacking the source release and building a MacOSX distro entirely from source. The package started fine.
>
> Comparisons to SVN and a RAT scan via the buildbot was accomplished. rat-excludes file has not been changed since before the prior 3.4.0 release, but please look at it to see if there is anything in there that is troublesome - there are some "binary" files but they are in example and test directories. Perhaps there are edge cases, but it is typical to have examples and unit tests that include binaries in other projects.
>
> There are some wildcard excludes that may be better as specific.
>
> I recommend that you do any RAT scan on Linux as there is trouble of some kind on MacOSX and Windows.
>
> Let us know if you think that this is beyond "cups" and "saucers" level.
>
> I did not consider the binary packages for multiple platforms and languages at all in my VOTE.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@...> wrote:

> In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
> VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.

Thank you, Dave.  I consider your statement to override the assertion on
ooo-dev that binaries are part of the official release, and that suffices to
address my concern about this specific VOTE: no ASF policy is being
challenged.

I withdraw my -1.

> Edge case and RAT check discussion at the bottom, if that balances your vote
> in either direction.

I've read through a number of recent threads in the ooo-dev archives.

It bothers me a bit that AFAICT the RAT report was not run prior to cutting
the RC.  As a "freelance" IPMC vote, I have few tools at my disposal to assess
a release and I have to rely on the diligence of the PPMC with regards to IP
integrity.  In and of itself, RAT is just a helper, but whether it gets run is
a heuristic.  :)  I wonder why "Run RAT" did not end up on a pre-release
checklist anywhere.

> Please advise about whether you think the PPMC needs to respin the VOTE
> and/or the Artifacts in any way.

*   Sums and sigs look good for all 3 source archives.
*   All archives contain identical source files.
*   I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
    able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
    close, though seemingly not exact.  The discrepancies are shown below.
    I don't believe this should block, but it would be nice to know why the
    differences exist.
*   I did not attempt to build and test, as I believe others have this
    covered.

The one thing I want to follow up on is the outcome of the posthumous RAT
audit:

    http://markmail.org/message/yrb4ujtj5s4poi5b

    > ./testgraphical/ui/java/ConvwatchGUIProject/dist/ConvwatchGUIProject.jar

    No idea. But it is test code, not needed for building.

    > ./xmlsecurity/test_docs/tools/httpserv/dist/httpserv.jar

    Not needed for building. It is part of a test setup for testing
    Certification Revocation Lists.

    So for the last two we should verify license. If the license allows
    redistribution, then I think we're fine. If not, then we need to build a
    new src ZIP without them.

If I hear that those files pass muster, I expect to vote +1.

Marvin Humphrey


marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.asc
gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:40 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <jsc@...>"
gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.asc
gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:31:06 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <jsc@...>"
gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.asc
gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:07 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <jsc@...>"
gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.sha256
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz: OK
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.sha256
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip: OK
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.sha256
aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2: OK
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz)= 356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.md5
356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853  aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2)= 8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.md5
8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0  aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip)= 5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.md5
5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d  aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -urw bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ zip/aoo-3.4.1/
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/ext_libraries/
tgz/aoo-3.4.1/ext_libraries/
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/extras/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/extras/
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/main/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/
Only in exported/main/: .gitignore
Only in exported/main/: .hgignore
Only in exported/main/: .hgtags
Only in tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/: Makefile
Only in exported/main/solenv: unxmacxp
Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxlngi
Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxsoli
Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: wntmsci
Only in exported/main/toolkit/workben/layout: .gitignore
diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
--- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx 2012-05-31
05:59:10.000000000 -0700
+++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx 2012-08-14
07:18:47.000000000 -0700
@@ -511,6 +511,7 @@

 DataFlavorMapper::DataFlavorMapper()
 {
+    fprintf(stderr, "### constructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
     Reference<XMultiServiceFactory> mrServiceManager =
vcl::unohelper::GetMultiServiceFactory();
     mrXMimeCntFactory =
Reference<XMimeContentTypeFactory>(mrServiceManager->createInstance(
    OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("com.sun.star.datatransfer.MimeContentTypeFactory"))),
UNO_QUERY);
@@ -521,6 +522,7 @@

 DataFlavorMapper::~DataFlavorMapper()
 {
+    fprintf(stderr, "### destructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
     // release potential NSStrings
     for( OfficeOnlyTypes::iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.begin(); it
!= maOfficeOnlyTypes.end(); ++it )
     {
@@ -547,8 +549,12 @@
  // look if this might be an internal type; if it comes in here it must have
  // been through openOfficeToSystemFlavor before, so it should then
be in the map
  rtl::OUString aTryFlavor( NSStringToOUString( systemDataFlavor ) );
- if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
+
+ rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(aTryFlavor,
RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
+    fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor # %s\n", testFlavor.getStr());
+    if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
  {
+        fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor ### found %s\n",
testFlavor.getStr());
     oOOFlavor.MimeType = aTryFlavor;
     oOOFlavor.HumanPresentableName = rtl::OUString();
     oOOFlavor.DataType = CPPUTYPE_SEQINT8;
@@ -569,14 +575,20 @@
  }
  }
 
+    rtl::OString testMime( rtl::OUStringToOString(oOOFlavor.MimeType,
RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
  if( ! sysFlavor )
  {
  OfficeOnlyTypes::const_iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.find(
oOOFlavor.MimeType );
- if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
+ if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() ) {
+            fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #if: %s\n",
testMime.getStr());
  sysFlavor = maOfficeOnlyTypes[ oOOFlavor.MimeType ] =
OUStringToNSString( oOOFlavor.MimeType );
- else
- sysFlavor = it->second;
- }
+ } else {
+            fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else: %s\n",
testMime.getStr());
+            sysFlavor = it->second;
+        }
+ } else
+        fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else 2: %s\n",
testMime.getStr());
+
 
  return sysFlavor;
 }
@@ -585,6 +597,11 @@
 {
     NSArray *supportedTypes = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:
NSTIFFPboardType, NSPICTPboardType, nil];
     NSString *sysFlavor = [pPasteboard availableTypeFromArray:supportedTypes];
+
+    rtl::OUString testUFlavor( NSStringToOUString( sysFlavor ) );
+ rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(testUFlavor,
RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
+    fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeImageToSystemFlavor # %s\n",
testFlavor.getStr());
+
     return sysFlavor;
 }

@@ -711,10 +728,12 @@
       }
       else
       {
+          fprintf(stderr, "#
DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # else\n");
           NSString* str = openOfficeToSystemFlavor(flavors[i]);

           if (str != NULL)
           {
+              fprintf(stderr, "#
DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # if str!=NULL\n");
               [str retain];
               [array addObject: str];
           }
@@ -724,7 +743,7 @@
    // #i89462# #i90747#
    // in case no system flavor was found to report
    // report at least one so D&D between OOo targets works
-  if( [array count] == 0 )
+//  if( [array count] == 0 )
   {
       [array addObject: PBTYPE_DUMMY_INTERNAL];
   }
diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
--- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx 2011-11-06
01:26:39.000000000 -0800
+++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx 2012-08-14
06:27:33.000000000 -0700
@@ -78,8 +78,10 @@
 Any SAL_CALL OSXTransferable::getTransferData( const DataFlavor& aFlavor )
   throw( UnsupportedFlavorException, IOException, RuntimeException )
 {
+    fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData\n");
   if (!isValidFlavor(aFlavor) || !isDataFlavorSupported(aFlavor))
  {
+        fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData# throw
UnsupportedFlavorException\n");
   throw UnsupportedFlavorException(OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("AquaClipboard:
Unsupported data flavor")),
    static_cast<XTransferable*>(this));
  }
@@ -92,11 +94,13 @@

   if ([sysFormat caseInsensitiveCompare: NSFilenamesPboardType] ==
NSOrderedSame)
  {
+        fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # if\n");
   NSArray* sysData = [mPasteboard propertyListForType: sysFormat];
   dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
  }
   else
  {
+        fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # else\n");
   NSData* sysData = [mPasteboard dataForType: sysFormat];
   dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
  }
diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
--- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx 2011-11-06
01:26:39.000000000 -0800
+++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx 2012-08-14
06:44:22.000000000 -0700
@@ -189,6 +189,8 @@
         mpDataFlavorMapper->flavorSequenceToTypesArray(xTransferable->getTransferDataFlavors())
:
         [NSArray array];

+    int l = [types count];
+    fprintf(stderr, "# AquaClipboard::setContents # %d\n", l);
     ClearableMutexGuard aGuard(m_aMutex);

     Reference<XClipboardOwner> oldOwner(mXClipboardOwner);
@@ -339,8 +341,10 @@
 void SAL_CALL AquaClipboard::flushClipboard()
   throw(RuntimeException)
 {
+    fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard\n");
     if (mXClipboardContent.is())
  {
+        fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
mXClipboardContent.is() \n");
    Sequence<DataFlavor> flavorList =
mXClipboardContent->getTransferDataFlavors();
  sal_uInt32 nFlavors = flavorList.getLength();
 
@@ -350,8 +354,10 @@
 
  if (sysType != NULL)
  {
+                fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
sysType != NULL\n");
  provideDataForType(mPasteboard, sysType);
- }
+ } else
+                fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
sysType == NULL\n");
  }
  mXClipboardContent.clear();
  }
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Greg Stein-4]

Rob: I believe it is rather foolish to argue that Roy is incorrect.

For starters, he wrote the Bylaws, and is well-versed in the intent of this
Foundation. Second, the Foundation policies take precedence over
third-party concepts, so whether you/OSI may define a binary as open source
is wholly immaterial. And lastly, you cannot defer to "most would disagree"
as the only authority is the Foundation, rather than "most".

-g
On Aug 20, 2012 5:11 PM, "Rob Weir" <robweir@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@...>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >>     [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
> >>     [ ]  0 Don't care
> >>     [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >
> > -1
> >
> > I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> > release:
> >
> >     http://s.apache.org/ha
> >
> >     We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being
> inspected
> >     and these will be part of the official release.
> >
> > The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
> > interpreted by Roy Fielding:
> >
> >     http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3
> >
> >     Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
> >     management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the
> Board
> >     of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
> >     maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public
> at no
> >     charge.
> >
> >     http://s.apache.org/rk5
> >
> >     This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
> >     certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of
> Delaware
> >     that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an
> IRS
> >     501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as
> part of
> >     every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
> >     open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the
> public."
> >
> >     Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files
> are not
>
> Actually, the bylaws do not define "open source" or "software".  So
> pick your definition.  The industry standard was the OSI definition,
> or so I thought, which makes it clear that open source also includes
> binaries that are accompanied by source code, or where
> "well-publicized means of obtaining the source code" are given.
>
> See:  http://opensource.org/osd.html
>
> I'd point out that the ALv2 applies to source as well as binaries.
>
>
> >     open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is
> applicable
> >     only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we
> vote on
> >     as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source
> artifacts.
> >     Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
> >     approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because
> the
> >     binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for
> release
> >     (even if it was derived from open source).
> >
>
> Again, most would disagree with the assertion that binaries are not open
> source.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
> >     I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write
> documentation
> >     to explain something that is fundamental to the open source
> definition?
> >
> > I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
> > casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source
> > release.
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>
>

[Greg Stein-4]

On Aug 20, 2012 5:06 PM, "Dave Fisher" <dave2wave@...> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>...
> > -1
> >
> > I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> > release:
...
> I am not surprised at your response, but it is hard and unproductive to
argue with Rob.

This sounds like a problem that the PPMC needs to solve.

(at a minimum, the term should be "discuss"; rarely should a healthy
community "argue", let alone concerns about "unproductive" discussions)

-g

[Jürgen Schmidt-3]

On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@...> wrote:
>
>> In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
>> VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
>
> Thank you, Dave.  I consider your statement to override the assertion on
> ooo-dev that binaries are part of the official release, and that suffices to
> address my concern about this specific VOTE: no ASF policy is being
> challenged.
>
> I withdraw my -1.
>
>> Edge case and RAT check discussion at the bottom, if that balances your vote
>> in either direction.
>
> I've read through a number of recent threads in the ooo-dev archives.
>
> It bothers me a bit that AFAICT the RAT report was not run prior to cutting
> the RC.  As a "freelance" IPMC vote, I have few tools at my disposal to assess
> a release and I have to rely on the diligence of the PPMC with regards to IP
> integrity.  In and of itself, RAT is just a helper, but whether it gets run is
> a heuristic.  :)  I wonder why "Run RAT" did not end up on a pre-release
> checklist anywhere.
>
>> Please advise about whether you think the PPMC needs to respin the VOTE
>> and/or the Artifacts in any way.
>
> *   Sums and sigs look good for all 3 source archives.
> *   All archives contain identical source files.
> *   I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
>     able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
>     close, though seemingly not exact.  The discrepancies are shown below.
>     I don't believe this should block, but it would be nice to know why the

I can explain this because I prepared the source release. The binaries
(MacOS) and the first build of the src release were made on clean source
tree based on revision r1372282.

After this I analyzed a potential further bugfix on the same tree. I
made some debug output in 3 cxx files. But after deeper analysis we
decided that we don't want include this fix in 3.4.1. The risk to break
something else was to high and we postponed the fix to the next release.

After this we recognize some problems with the RAT output. I deleted
some svn generated *.rej files and built the src package again to clean
up the RAT output. It seems that I have overseen the debug messages in
the changed cxx files.

I can easy repackage the src release on the same tree where I revert the
local changes to revision 1372282.

If we all agree I can easy exchange the src release packages with the
new ones.

>     differences exist.
> *   I did not attempt to build and test, as I believe others have this
>     covered.
>
> The one thing I want to follow up on is the outcome of the posthumous RAT
> audit:
>
>     http://markmail.org/message/yrb4ujtj5s4poi5b
>
>     > ./testgraphical/ui/java/ConvwatchGUIProject/dist/ConvwatchGUIProject.jar
>
>     No idea. But it is test code, not needed for building.
>
>     > ./xmlsecurity/test_docs/tools/httpserv/dist/httpserv.jar
>
>     Not needed for building. It is part of a test setup for testing
>     Certification Revocation Lists.
>
>     So for the last two we should verify license. If the license allows
>     redistribution, then I think we're fine. If not, then we need to build a
>     new src ZIP without them.
>
> If I hear that those files pass muster, I expect to vote +1.

Both jars are checked in and this can be seen as mistake. The reason is
that they are built by Netbeans projects and whoever checked in the code
has checked in the dist folder as well. And a further mistake is that
both project don't move the output in the output directory of the
module. That is the default behaviour in all modules, generated output
during the build process goes into the module output directory.

For example:
<module_name>/unxmacxi.pro/...

The ant script that package the src release takes care of the output
directories and exclude them. In this case the by mistake checked in
jars are packed as well.

This have to be fixed definitely and we have already started to fix it
on trunk. See issues [1] and [2].

The question is if it is release critical or not at this point? I think
it isn't because the jars are the output of 2 existing NetBeans projects
that are part of the src release as well. And I would like to prevent if
possible a new revision number because that means new binaries as well.


I propose the following for this release:

1. revert the debug output in the 3 *.cxx files and repackage the src
release based on r1372282

Cleanup for future releases on trunk.
2. Remove the 2 jars (the dist folder) from svn, adapt the projects to
deliver the output in the module output directory

3. Check other binaries again and make the RAT exclude list more fine
grained to document better for what reason the binaries have to be kept...

Juergen

[1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120634
[2] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120635

>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
>
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.asc
> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:40 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <jsc@...>"
> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.asc
> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:31:06 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <jsc@...>"
> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.asc
> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:07 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <jsc@...>"
> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.sha256
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz: OK
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.sha256
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip: OK
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.sha256
> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2: OK
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz)= 356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.md5
> 356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853  aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2)= 8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.md5
> 8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0  aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip)= 5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.md5
> 5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d  aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -urw bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ zip/aoo-3.4.1/
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/ext_libraries/
> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/ext_libraries/
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/extras/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/extras/
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/main/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/
> Only in exported/main/: .gitignore
> Only in exported/main/: .hgignore
> Only in exported/main/: .hgtags
> Only in tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/: Makefile
> Only in exported/main/solenv: unxmacxp
> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxlngi
> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxsoli
> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: wntmsci
> Only in exported/main/toolkit/workben/layout: .gitignore
> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx 2012-05-31
> 05:59:10.000000000 -0700
> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx 2012-08-14
> 07:18:47.000000000 -0700
> @@ -511,6 +511,7 @@
>
>  DataFlavorMapper::DataFlavorMapper()
>  {
> +    fprintf(stderr, "### constructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
>      Reference<XMultiServiceFactory> mrServiceManager =
> vcl::unohelper::GetMultiServiceFactory();
>      mrXMimeCntFactory =
> Reference<XMimeContentTypeFactory>(mrServiceManager->createInstance(
>     OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("com.sun.star.datatransfer.MimeContentTypeFactory"))),
> UNO_QUERY);
> @@ -521,6 +522,7 @@
>
>  DataFlavorMapper::~DataFlavorMapper()
>  {
> +    fprintf(stderr, "### destructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
>      // release potential NSStrings
>      for( OfficeOnlyTypes::iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.begin(); it
> != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end(); ++it )
>      {
> @@ -547,8 +549,12 @@
>   // look if this might be an internal type; if it comes in here it must have
>   // been through openOfficeToSystemFlavor before, so it should then
> be in the map
>   rtl::OUString aTryFlavor( NSStringToOUString( systemDataFlavor ) );
> - if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
> +
> + rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(aTryFlavor,
> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
> +    fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor # %s\n", testFlavor.getStr());
> +    if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
>   {
> +        fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor ### found %s\n",
> testFlavor.getStr());
>      oOOFlavor.MimeType = aTryFlavor;
>      oOOFlavor.HumanPresentableName = rtl::OUString();
>      oOOFlavor.DataType = CPPUTYPE_SEQINT8;
> @@ -569,14 +575,20 @@
>   }
>   }
>  
> +    rtl::OString testMime( rtl::OUStringToOString(oOOFlavor.MimeType,
> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
>   if( ! sysFlavor )
>   {
>   OfficeOnlyTypes::const_iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.find(
> oOOFlavor.MimeType );
> - if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
> + if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() ) {
> +            fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #if: %s\n",
> testMime.getStr());
>   sysFlavor = maOfficeOnlyTypes[ oOOFlavor.MimeType ] =
> OUStringToNSString( oOOFlavor.MimeType );
> - else
> - sysFlavor = it->second;
> - }
> + } else {
> +            fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else: %s\n",
> testMime.getStr());
> +            sysFlavor = it->second;
> +        }
> + } else
> +        fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else 2: %s\n",
> testMime.getStr());
> +
>  
>   return sysFlavor;
>  }
> @@ -585,6 +597,11 @@
>  {
>      NSArray *supportedTypes = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:
> NSTIFFPboardType, NSPICTPboardType, nil];
>      NSString *sysFlavor = [pPasteboard availableTypeFromArray:supportedTypes];
> +
> +    rtl::OUString testUFlavor( NSStringToOUString( sysFlavor ) );
> + rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(testUFlavor,
> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
> +    fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeImageToSystemFlavor # %s\n",
> testFlavor.getStr());
> +
>      return sysFlavor;
>  }
>
> @@ -711,10 +728,12 @@
>        }
>        else
>        {
> +          fprintf(stderr, "#
> DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # else\n");
>            NSString* str = openOfficeToSystemFlavor(flavors[i]);
>
>            if (str != NULL)
>            {
> +              fprintf(stderr, "#
> DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # if str!=NULL\n");
>                [str retain];
>                [array addObject: str];
>            }
> @@ -724,7 +743,7 @@
>     // #i89462# #i90747#
>     // in case no system flavor was found to report
>     // report at least one so D&D between OOo targets works
> -  if( [array count] == 0 )
> +//  if( [array count] == 0 )
>    {
>        [array addObject: PBTYPE_DUMMY_INTERNAL];
>    }
> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx 2011-11-06
> 01:26:39.000000000 -0800
> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx 2012-08-14
> 06:27:33.000000000 -0700
> @@ -78,8 +78,10 @@
>  Any SAL_CALL OSXTransferable::getTransferData( const DataFlavor& aFlavor )
>    throw( UnsupportedFlavorException, IOException, RuntimeException )
>  {
> +    fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData\n");
>    if (!isValidFlavor(aFlavor) || !isDataFlavorSupported(aFlavor))
>   {
> +        fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData# throw
> UnsupportedFlavorException\n");
>    throw UnsupportedFlavorException(OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("AquaClipboard:
> Unsupported data flavor")),
>     static_cast<XTransferable*>(this));
>   }
> @@ -92,11 +94,13 @@
>
>    if ([sysFormat caseInsensitiveCompare: NSFilenamesPboardType] ==
> NSOrderedSame)
>   {
> +        fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # if\n");
>    NSArray* sysData = [mPasteboard propertyListForType: sysFormat];
>    dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
>   }
>    else
>   {
> +        fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # else\n");
>    NSData* sysData = [mPasteboard dataForType: sysFormat];
>    dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
>   }
> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx 2011-11-06
> 01:26:39.000000000 -0800
> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx 2012-08-14
> 06:44:22.000000000 -0700
> @@ -189,6 +189,8 @@
>          mpDataFlavorMapper->flavorSequenceToTypesArray(xTransferable->getTransferDataFlavors())
> :
>          [NSArray array];
>
> +    int l = [types count];
> +    fprintf(stderr, "# AquaClipboard::setContents # %d\n", l);
>      ClearableMutexGuard aGuard(m_aMutex);
>
>      Reference<XClipboardOwner> oldOwner(mXClipboardOwner);
> @@ -339,8 +341,10 @@
>  void SAL_CALL AquaClipboard::flushClipboard()
>    throw(RuntimeException)
>  {
> +    fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard\n");
>      if (mXClipboardContent.is())
>   {
> +        fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
> mXClipboardContent.is() \n");
>     Sequence<DataFlavor> flavorList =
> mXClipboardContent->getTransferDataFlavors();
>   sal_uInt32 nFlavors = flavorList.getLength();
>  
> @@ -350,8 +354,10 @@
>  
>   if (sysType != NULL)
>   {
> +                fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
> sysType != NULL\n");
>   provideDataForType(mPasteboard, sysType);
> - }
> + } else
> +                fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
> sysType == NULL\n");
>   }
>   mXClipboardContent.clear();
>   }
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Rob Weir-6]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...> wrote:

> On 8/21/12 8:14 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@...> wrote:
>>
>>> In my mind as an IPMC member and Apache Member, this is a source release
>>> VOTE with convenience binary artifacts.
>>
>> Thank you, Dave.  I consider your statement to override the assertion on
>> ooo-dev that binaries are part of the official release, and that suffices to
>> address my concern about this specific VOTE: no ASF policy is being
>> challenged.
>>
>> I withdraw my -1.
>>
>>> Edge case and RAT check discussion at the bottom, if that balances your vote
>>> in either direction.
>>
>> I've read through a number of recent threads in the ooo-dev archives.
>>
>> It bothers me a bit that AFAICT the RAT report was not run prior to cutting
>> the RC.  As a "freelance" IPMC vote, I have few tools at my disposal to assess
>> a release and I have to rely on the diligence of the PPMC with regards to IP
>> integrity.  In and of itself, RAT is just a helper, but whether it gets run is
>> a heuristic.  :)  I wonder why "Run RAT" did not end up on a pre-release
>> checklist anywhere.
>>
>>> Please advise about whether you think the PPMC needs to respin the VOTE
>>> and/or the Artifacts in any way.
>>
>> *   Sums and sigs look good for all 3 source archives.
>> *   All archives contain identical source files.
>> *   I could not find a version control tag for 3.4.1-rc2, but I was
>>     able to obtain the AOO34 branch at the specified revision 1372282; it was
>>     close, though seemingly not exact.  The discrepancies are shown below.
>>     I don't believe this should block, but it would be nice to know why the
>
> I can explain this because I prepared the source release. The binaries
> (MacOS) and the first build of the src release were made on clean source
> tree based on revision r1372282.
>
> After this I analyzed a potential further bugfix on the same tree. I
> made some debug output in 3 cxx files. But after deeper analysis we
> decided that we don't want include this fix in 3.4.1. The risk to break
> something else was to high and we postponed the fix to the next release.
>
> After this we recognize some problems with the RAT output. I deleted
> some svn generated *.rej files and built the src package again to clean
> up the RAT output. It seems that I have overseen the debug messages in
> the changed cxx files.
>
> I can easy repackage the src release on the same tree where I revert the
> local changes to revision 1372282.
>
> If we all agree I can easy exchange the src release packages with the
> new ones.
>
>
>>     differences exist.
>> *   I did not attempt to build and test, as I believe others have this
>>     covered.
>>
>> The one thing I want to follow up on is the outcome of the posthumous RAT
>> audit:
>>
>>     http://markmail.org/message/yrb4ujtj5s4poi5b
>>
>>     > ./testgraphical/ui/java/ConvwatchGUIProject/dist/ConvwatchGUIProject.jar
>>
>>     No idea. But it is test code, not needed for building.
>>
>>     > ./xmlsecurity/test_docs/tools/httpserv/dist/httpserv.jar
>>
>>     Not needed for building. It is part of a test setup for testing
>>     Certification Revocation Lists.
>>
>>     So for the last two we should verify license. If the license allows
>>     redistribution, then I think we're fine. If not, then we need to build a
>>     new src ZIP without them.
>>
>> If I hear that those files pass muster, I expect to vote +1.
>
> Both jars are checked in and this can be seen as mistake. The reason is
> that they are built by Netbeans projects and whoever checked in the code
> has checked in the dist folder as well. And a further mistake is that
> both project don't move the output in the output directory of the
> module. That is the default behaviour in all modules, generated output
> during the build process goes into the module output directory.
>

Or said otherwise, these two JAR's are built from ALv2-licensed source
code, part of the source artifact distribution:

> ./testgraphical/ui/java/ConvwatchGUIProject/dist/ConvwatchGUIProject.jar

> ./xmlsecurity/test_docs/tools/httpserv/dist/httpserv.jar

So we have license to distribute and no special notice is required.

Apparently this redundancy was inherited from the initial code that
came in via the Oracle SGA.  We'll fix in the trunk.

Regards,

-Rob

> For example:
> <module_name>/unxmacxi.pro/...
>
> The ant script that package the src release takes care of the output
> directories and exclude them. In this case the by mistake checked in
> jars are packed as well.
>
> This have to be fixed definitely and we have already started to fix it
> on trunk. See issues [1] and [2].
>
> The question is if it is release critical or not at this point? I think
> it isn't because the jars are the output of 2 existing NetBeans projects
> that are part of the src release as well. And I would like to prevent if
> possible a new revision number because that means new binaries as well.
>
>
> I propose the following for this release:
>
> 1. revert the debug output in the 3 *.cxx files and repackage the src
> release based on r1372282
>
> Cleanup for future releases on trunk.
> 2. Remove the 2 jars (the dist folder) from svn, adapt the projects to
> deliver the output in the module output directory
>
> 3. Check other binaries again and make the RAT exclude list more fine
> grained to document better for what reason the binaries have to be kept...
>
> Juergen
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120634
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120635
>
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>>
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.asc
>> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:40 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
>> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <jsc@...>"
>> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
>> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
>> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.asc
>> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:31:06 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
>> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <jsc@...>"
>> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
>> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
>> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ gpg --verify aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.asc
>> gpg: Signature made Fri Aug 17 09:30:07 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
>> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <jsc@...>"
>> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
>> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
>> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.sha256
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz: OK
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.sha256
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip: OK
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ shasum -c
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.sha256
>> aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2: OK
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
>> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz)= 356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz.md5
>> 356b8441d3bb08ffbbd76798188e8853  aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.gz
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
>> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2)= 8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2.md5
>> 8768256bba577f4dd97ade0032e5f5d0  aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.tar.bz2
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ openssl md5 aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
>> MD5(aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip)= 5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ cat aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip.md5
>> 5a61227c387827f04fda68a750ccdf9d  aoo-3.4.1-incubating-src.zip
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -urw bz2/aoo-3.4.1/ zip/aoo-3.4.1/
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/ext_libraries/
>> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/ext_libraries/
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/extras/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/extras/
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $ diff -ur exported/main/ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/
>> Only in exported/main/: .gitignore
>> Only in exported/main/: .hgignore
>> Only in exported/main/: .hgtags
>> Only in tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/: Makefile
>> Only in exported/main/solenv: unxmacxp
>> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxlngi
>> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: unxsoli
>> Only in exported/main/testgraphical/references: wntmsci
>> Only in exported/main/toolkit/workben/layout: .gitignore
>> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
>> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx
>> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx        2012-05-31
>> 05:59:10.000000000 -0700
>> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/DataFlavorMapping.cxx   2012-08-14
>> 07:18:47.000000000 -0700
>> @@ -511,6 +511,7 @@
>>
>>  DataFlavorMapper::DataFlavorMapper()
>>  {
>> +    fprintf(stderr, "### constructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
>>      Reference<XMultiServiceFactory> mrServiceManager =
>> vcl::unohelper::GetMultiServiceFactory();
>>      mrXMimeCntFactory =
>> Reference<XMimeContentTypeFactory>(mrServiceManager->createInstance(
>>          OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("com.sun.star.datatransfer.MimeContentTypeFactory"))),
>> UNO_QUERY);
>> @@ -521,6 +522,7 @@
>>
>>  DataFlavorMapper::~DataFlavorMapper()
>>  {
>> +    fprintf(stderr, "### destructor DataFlavorMapper\n");
>>      // release potential NSStrings
>>      for( OfficeOnlyTypes::iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.begin(); it
>> != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end(); ++it )
>>      {
>> @@ -547,8 +549,12 @@
>>       // look if this might be an internal type; if it comes in here it must have
>>       // been through openOfficeToSystemFlavor before, so it should then
>> be in the map
>>       rtl::OUString aTryFlavor( NSStringToOUString( systemDataFlavor ) );
>> -     if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
>> +
>> +     rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(aTryFlavor,
>> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
>> +    fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor # %s\n", testFlavor.getStr());
>> +    if( maOfficeOnlyTypes.find( aTryFlavor ) != maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
>>       {
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "# systemToOpenOfficeFlavor ### found %s\n",
>> testFlavor.getStr());
>>           oOOFlavor.MimeType = aTryFlavor;
>>           oOOFlavor.HumanPresentableName = rtl::OUString();
>>           oOOFlavor.DataType = CPPUTYPE_SEQINT8;
>> @@ -569,14 +575,20 @@
>>               }
>>       }
>>
>> +    rtl::OString testMime( rtl::OUStringToOString(oOOFlavor.MimeType,
>> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
>>       if( ! sysFlavor )
>>       {
>>               OfficeOnlyTypes::const_iterator it = maOfficeOnlyTypes.find(
>> oOOFlavor.MimeType );
>> -             if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() )
>> +             if( it == maOfficeOnlyTypes.end() ) {
>> +            fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #if: %s\n",
>> testMime.getStr());
>>                       sysFlavor = maOfficeOnlyTypes[ oOOFlavor.MimeType ] =
>> OUStringToNSString( oOOFlavor.MimeType );
>> -             else
>> -                     sysFlavor = it->second;
>> -     }
>> +             } else {
>> +            fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else: %s\n",
>> testMime.getStr());
>> +            sysFlavor = it->second;
>> +        }
>> +     } else
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeToSystemFlavor #else 2: %s\n",
>> testMime.getStr());
>> +
>>
>>       return sysFlavor;
>>  }
>> @@ -585,6 +597,11 @@
>>  {
>>      NSArray *supportedTypes = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:
>> NSTIFFPboardType, NSPICTPboardType, nil];
>>      NSString *sysFlavor = [pPasteboard availableTypeFromArray:supportedTypes];
>> +
>> +    rtl::OUString testUFlavor( NSStringToOUString( sysFlavor ) );
>> +     rtl::OString testFlavor( rtl::OUStringToOString(testUFlavor,
>> RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8) );
>> +    fprintf(stderr, "# openOfficeImageToSystemFlavor # %s\n",
>> testFlavor.getStr());
>> +
>>      return sysFlavor;
>>  }
>>
>> @@ -711,10 +728,12 @@
>>        }
>>        else
>>        {
>> +          fprintf(stderr, "#
>> DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # else\n");
>>            NSString* str = openOfficeToSystemFlavor(flavors[i]);
>>
>>            if (str != NULL)
>>            {
>> +              fprintf(stderr, "#
>> DataFlavorMapper::flavorSequenceToTypesArray # if str!=NULL\n");
>>                [str retain];
>>                [array addObject: str];
>>            }
>> @@ -724,7 +743,7 @@
>>     // #i89462# #i90747#
>>     // in case no system flavor was found to report
>>     // report at least one so D&D between OOo targets works
>> -  if( [array count] == 0 )
>> +//  if( [array count] == 0 )
>>    {
>>        [array addObject: PBTYPE_DUMMY_INTERNAL];
>>    }
>> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
>> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx
>> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx  2011-11-06
>> 01:26:39.000000000 -0800
>> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/OSXTransferable.cxx     2012-08-14
>> 06:27:33.000000000 -0700
>> @@ -78,8 +78,10 @@
>>  Any SAL_CALL OSXTransferable::getTransferData( const DataFlavor& aFlavor )
>>    throw( UnsupportedFlavorException, IOException, RuntimeException )
>>  {
>> +    fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData\n");
>>    if (!isValidFlavor(aFlavor) || !isDataFlavorSupported(aFlavor))
>>       {
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData# throw
>> UnsupportedFlavorException\n");
>>         throw UnsupportedFlavorException(OUString(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("AquaClipboard:
>> Unsupported data flavor")),
>>                                                                          static_cast<XTransferable*>(this));
>>       }
>> @@ -92,11 +94,13 @@
>>
>>    if ([sysFormat caseInsensitiveCompare: NSFilenamesPboardType] ==
>> NSOrderedSame)
>>       {
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # if\n");
>>         NSArray* sysData = [mPasteboard propertyListForType: sysFormat];
>>         dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
>>       }
>>    else
>>       {
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "# OSXTransferable::getTransferData # else\n");
>>         NSData* sysData = [mPasteboard dataForType: sysFormat];
>>         dp = mDataFlavorMapper->getDataProvider(sysFormat, sysData);
>>       }
>> diff -ur exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
>> tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx
>> --- exported/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx   2011-11-06
>> 01:26:39.000000000 -0800
>> +++ tgz/aoo-3.4.1/main/vcl/aqua/source/dtrans/aqua_clipboard.cxx      2012-08-14
>> 06:44:22.000000000 -0700
>> @@ -189,6 +189,8 @@
>>          mpDataFlavorMapper->flavorSequenceToTypesArray(xTransferable->getTransferDataFlavors())
>> :
>>          [NSArray array];
>>
>> +    int l = [types count];
>> +    fprintf(stderr, "# AquaClipboard::setContents # %d\n", l);
>>      ClearableMutexGuard aGuard(m_aMutex);
>>
>>      Reference<XClipboardOwner> oldOwner(mXClipboardOwner);
>> @@ -339,8 +341,10 @@
>>  void SAL_CALL AquaClipboard::flushClipboard()
>>    throw(RuntimeException)
>>  {
>> +    fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard\n");
>>      if (mXClipboardContent.is())
>>       {
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
>> mXClipboardContent.is() \n");
>>               Sequence<DataFlavor> flavorList =
>> mXClipboardContent->getTransferDataFlavors();
>>               sal_uInt32 nFlavors = flavorList.getLength();
>>
>> @@ -350,8 +354,10 @@
>>
>>                       if (sysType != NULL)
>>                       {
>> +                fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
>> sysType != NULL\n");
>>                               provideDataForType(mPasteboard, sysType);
>> -                     }
>> +                     } else
>> +                fprintf(stderr, "#### AquaClipboard::flushClipboard #
>> sysType == NULL\n");
>>               }
>>               mXClipboardContent.clear();
>>       }
>> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo341 $
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[sebb-2-2]

On 18 August 2012 13:24, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@...> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release for
> Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more than 11 million
> downloads.
>
>
> This release candidate provides the following important key changes
> compared to the OpenOffice 3.4 release:
>
> (1) Five more translations: Finnish, British English, Khmer, Slovak, and
> Slovenian.
>
> (2) As of 2012/08/16, there were 69 verified issues that have been
>     resolved. (Complete list at http://s.apache.org/Huv)
>
> (3) Update of the NOTICE file: it now properly mentions CoinMP as numerical
> equation solver.
>
> (3) Most external source archives are now downloaded from their project
> servers.
>     For all of them exists a fallback at
> http://ooo-extras.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/.
>     The Apache SVN repository is only used as secondary fallback and
>     is not used in practice.
>     It will be removed in the next release.
>
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following
> wiki page:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
> (incubating).

I think the NOTICE file included in the source release is wrong.
NOTICE files are for *required* notices only, and should be as short
as possible, and should only relate to software that is actually
included in the particular artifact in which they appear.

There are several repeated instances of

=======
This product includes software developed by
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
=======

There should only be one instance at the head of the file.

The Tomcat (Tomcat? is that really included?) section mentions NSIS -
is that really included?

There are lots of other entries which look superfluous.
It's vital that the NOTICE file only include *required* notices.

If the binary builds include additional software, then their N&L files
need to include any required references.

I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.

> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
>     Tuesday, August 21st: 2012-08-21 15pm UTC+2.
>
> The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list.
> There where 11 +1 votes including
>    one IPMC member binding +1,
>    10 +1 votes fro PPMC members (this includes the one IPMC member),
>    one +1 vote from a community member.
> No abstinations, no -1 votes.
>
> Vote thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C502B8FCD.4050100%40googlemail.com%3E
>
>
> The vote will be open for 3 days.
>
>     [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>     [ ]  0 Don't care
>     [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Jürgen Schmidt-3]

On 8/21/12 12:52 PM, sebb wrote:

> On 18 August 2012 13:24, Andre Fischer <awf.aoo@...> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
>> OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating). This will be the second incubator release for
>> Apache OpenOffice after the 3.4 release with already more than 11 million
>> downloads.
>>
>>
>> This release candidate provides the following important key changes
>> compared to the OpenOffice 3.4 release:
>>
>> (1) Five more translations: Finnish, British English, Khmer, Slovak, and
>> Slovenian.
>>
>> (2) As of 2012/08/16, there were 69 verified issues that have been
>>     resolved. (Complete list at http://s.apache.org/Huv)
>>
>> (3) Update of the NOTICE file: it now properly mentions CoinMP as numerical
>> equation solver.
>>
>> (3) Most external source archives are now downloaded from their project
>> servers.
>>     For all of them exists a fallback at
>> http://ooo-extras.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/.
>>     The Apache SVN repository is only used as secondary fallback and
>>     is not used in practice.
>>     It will be removed in the next release.
>>
>>
>> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes at
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4.1+Release+Notes.
>>
>> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
>> releases for 20 languages) and further information how to verify and
>> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) can be found on the following
>> wiki page:
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOO3.4.1
>>
>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1
>> (incubating).
>
> I think the NOTICE file included in the source release is wrong.
> NOTICE files are for *required* notices only, and should be as short
> as possible, and should only relate to software that is actually
> included in the particular artifact in which they appear.
>
> There are several repeated instances of
>
> =======
> This product includes software developed by
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> =======
>
> There should only be one instance at the head of the file.
>
> The Tomcat (Tomcat? is that really included?) section mentions NSIS -
> is that really included?
>
> There are lots of other entries which look superfluous.
> It's vital that the NOTICE file only include *required* notices.

I can't argue about the exact content and the format how a NOTICE have
to look like. No changes in the NOTICE file for the src release compared
to AOO 3.4

We had many discussion on the NOTICE file for 3.4 and followed the
advices of we got from these discussion

The discussion took place on
ooo-dev
legal-discuss

And you can find comments here on the list.

>
> If the binary builds include additional software, then their N&L files
> need to include any required references.

The binaries includes an aggregated NOTICE file where other included
external software (category-b) is integrated.

Here we added the COINMP stuff for the 3.4.1 release that was raised as
feedback to 3.4.

>
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.

mmh, I am unsure, the next time somebody else with a different view and
opinion comes up and we have to change it again?

Again we changed it according the advices we got for the AOO 3.4 release.

Juergen

>
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>
>>     Tuesday, August 21st: 2012-08-21 15pm UTC+2.
>>
>> The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list.
>> There where 11 +1 votes including
>>    one IPMC member binding +1,
>>    10 +1 votes fro PPMC members (this includes the one IPMC member),
>>    one +1 vote from a community member.
>> No abstinations, no -1 votes.
>>
>> Vote thread:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201208.mbox/%3C502B8FCD.4050100%40googlemail.com%3E
>>
>>
>> The vote will be open for 3 days.
>>
>>     [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>>     [ ]  0 Don't care
>>     [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Branko Čibej]

On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.

This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
justify this new requirement?

It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.

By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
vote.

It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
(N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
artefacts has not.)

-- Brane


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Thilo Götz]

On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>
> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
> justify this new requirement?

Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
are now.  Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer
organization.  The backs and forths you are seeing here are
normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like
this.  This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are
either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller
organizations where it was easier to come to a decision.  Try
to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part
of the wider Apache community (not just your project).  Help
improve things where you see they are lacking.  This community
aspect is very important at Apache.

As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement.  The
issue just wasn't spotted last time.  Yes, that's annoying, but
it can't be helped.  The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the
most important files in your distribution, and you should make
every effort to get them right.  Sebb raises valid concerns that
need to be addressed.

Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)

BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job.  I was not optimistic
when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where
you are now.  Keep up the good work.

--Thilo

>
> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
>
> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
> vote.
>
> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
> artefacts has not.)
>
> -- Brane
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Rob Weir-6]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <twgoetz@...> wrote:

> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>
>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
>> justify this new requirement?
>
> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
> are now.  Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer
> organization.  The backs and forths you are seeing here are
> normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like
> this.  This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are
> either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller
> organizations where it was easier to come to a decision.  Try
> to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part
> of the wider Apache community (not just your project).  Help
> improve things where you see they are lacking.  This community
> aspect is very important at Apache.
>
> As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement.  The
> issue just wasn't spotted last time.  Yes, that's annoying, but
> it can't be helped.  The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the
> most important files in your distribution, and you should make
> every effort to get them right.  Sebb raises valid concerns that
> need to be addressed.
>

A suggested exercise at ApacheCon.  Get a group of 20 Members, break
them into groups of 5.  Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
 Give them 30 minutes.  Compare the results.

I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in
substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within
the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct".

-Rob

> Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)
>
> BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job.  I was not optimistic
> when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where
> you are now.  Keep up the good work.
>
> --Thilo
>
>
>>
>> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
>> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
>> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
>>
>> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
>> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
>> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
>> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
>> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
>> vote.
>>
>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
>> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
>> artefacts has not.)
>>
>> -- Brane
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[bimargulies]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@...> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <twgoetz@...> wrote:
>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>
>>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
>>> justify this new requirement?
>>
>> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
>> are now.  Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer
>> organization.  The backs and forths you are seeing here are
>> normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like
>> this.  This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are
>> either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller
>> organizations where it was easier to come to a decision.  Try
>> to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part
>> of the wider Apache community (not just your project).  Help
>> improve things where you see they are lacking.  This community
>> aspect is very important at Apache.
>>
>> As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement.  The
>> issue just wasn't spotted last time.  Yes, that's annoying, but
>> it can't be helped.  The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the
>> most important files in your distribution, and you should make
>> every effort to get them right.  Sebb raises valid concerns that
>> need to be addressed.

this point has, in fact, been the subject of a long-standing debate in
the IPMC. While I have the greatest respect for sebb, there are other
members of this PMC for whom I also have great respect who have taken
the opposite view -- that - within reason - flaws in these files can
be noted and repaired for the next release.

The situation at hand is complicated by the running graduation thread
for AOO, since it seems to me to be reasonable to expect that these
files have achieved a consensus state before graduation. However,
that's just a thought on my part.

>>
>
> A suggested exercise at ApacheCon.  Get a group of 20 Members, break
> them into groups of 5.  Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
> dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
>  Give them 30 minutes.  Compare the results.
>
> I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in
> substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within
> the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct".
>
> -Rob
>
>> Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)
>>
>> BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job.  I was not optimistic
>> when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where
>> you are now.  Keep up the good work.
>>
>> --Thilo
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
>>> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
>>> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
>>>
>>> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
>>> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
>>> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
>>> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
>>> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
>>> vote.
>>>
>>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>>> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
>>> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
>>> artefacts has not.)
>>>
>>> -- Brane
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Rob Weir-6]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@...> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@...> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <twgoetz@...> wrote:
>>> On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>>>>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
>>>>
>>>> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
>>>> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
>>>> justify this new requirement?
>>>
>>> Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
>>> are now.  Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer
>>> organization.  The backs and forths you are seeing here are
>>> normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like
>>> this.  This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are
>>> either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller
>>> organizations where it was easier to come to a decision.  Try
>>> to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part
>>> of the wider Apache community (not just your project).  Help
>>> improve things where you see they are lacking.  This community
>>> aspect is very important at Apache.
>>>
>>> As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement.  The
>>> issue just wasn't spotted last time.  Yes, that's annoying, but
>>> it can't be helped.  The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the
>>> most important files in your distribution, and you should make
>>> every effort to get them right.  Sebb raises valid concerns that
>>> need to be addressed.
>
> this point has, in fact, been the subject of a long-standing debate in
> the IPMC. While I have the greatest respect for sebb, there are other
> members of this PMC for whom I also have great respect who have taken
> the opposite view -- that - within reason - flaws in these files can
> be noted and repaired for the next release.
>
> The situation at hand is complicated by the running graduation thread
> for AOO, since it seems to me to be reasonable to expect that these
> files have achieved a consensus state before graduation. However,
> that's just a thought on my part.
>

We're just running the "community readiness" graduation vote on
ooo-dev right now.  We're also discussing the composition of the PMC,
drafting the charter on our wiki, looking toward nominating a Chair,
etc.  But no formal IPMC vote on graduation is underway.  That will
happen in due course.

One option might be to agree that the NOTICE issues are not fatal to
the purpose of a NOTICE file, and approve the release.  But then have
further discussion on it leading to changes in our trunk, and that
could be a condition of graduation.

-Rob

>
>
>
>>>
>>
>> A suggested exercise at ApacheCon.  Get a group of 20 Members, break
>> them into groups of 5.  Give each group an identical list of 3rd party
>> dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them.
>>  Give them 30 minutes.  Compare the results.
>>
>> I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in
>> substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within
>> the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct".
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)
>>>
>>> BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job.  I was not optimistic
>>> when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where
>>> you are now.  Keep up the good work.
>>>
>>> --Thilo
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
>>>> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
>>>> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
>>>> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
>>>> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
>>>> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
>>>> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
>>>> vote.
>>>>
>>>> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
>>>> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
>>>> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
>>>> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
>>>> artefacts has not.)
>>>>
>>>> -- Brane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...